FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 16-1001
(D.C. No. 1:88-CR-00064-CMA-1)
(D. Colo.)
GARY deWILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pro se federal prisoner Gary deWilliams appeals from the denial of his “Motion to
Correct Clerical Errors” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
Rule 36 states: “After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may
at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or
correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.”
In 1988, Mr. deWilliams pled guilty to bank robbery and making false statements.
On August 3, 1988, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and judgment was entered on
August 9, 1988.2 On August 24, 1988, the district judge issued a Clarification of
Judgment (“COJ”), which stated:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte to clarify the sentence
previously imposed in this case. This Court has ruled that the Sentencing
Guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission were
unconstitutional. Therefore, all sentences of this Court are under
preexisting law and not the Sentencing Reform Act. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the sentence entered in this case is clarified to show
that it was imposed under preexisting law and not under the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Probation Department transmit a
certified copy of this order to Defendant’s place of confinement.
ROA Vol. II at 66.
On September 24, 2015, Mr. deWilliams filed his Rule 36 motion, which asked
the district court to “update” the COJ
to show (i) the federal offenses and statu[t]es for which the court impose[d] its
sentence(s), (ii) the financial, confinement, and supervision obligation, (iii)
sentencing procedure to be processed, (iv) credit of jail time, if any, and
(v) designated institution with no special instructions.
Id. at 59-60. In his motion, Mr. deWilliams contended the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
needs this information so he can pursue opportunities for, among other things, prison
jobs, housing, and vocational courses. Id. at 60-61.
2
The district court’s order denying the Rule 36 motion and the Government’s
brief both refer to the judgment as dated August 3, 1988, but the record indicates
judgment was entered on August 9, 1988.
-2-
On December 14, 2015, the district court denied the motion. It pointed out that the
original judgment contains the information Mr. deWilliams had asked to be added to the
COJ, and that both the judgment and the COJ would be included in his BOP file. In
addition to denying the motion, the court recommended in its order that “the BOP, to the
extent it is not already doing so, to also consider Mr. deWilliams’ August [9], 1988
Judgment (as it ordinarily would) in making any such determinations.” Id. at 76. The
Government states in its brief that it has forwarded the court’s order denying the motion
“to the BOP and has requested that the BOP ensure that it consider both Mr. deWilliams’
August [9], 1988 Judgment, and Mr. deWilliams’ August 24, 1988 Clarification of
Judgment, in making determinations regarding Mr. deWilliams’ qualifications for
particular programs or services.” Aplee. Br. at 10 n.4.
In his brief to this court, Mr. deWilliams does not present any meritorious
argument that challenges the district court’s denial of his motion. He devotes most of his
35-page brief and 58 pages of attachments to court rulings and proceedings from his case
more than 25 years ago that are not pertinent to the issue on appeal—the ruling on his
Rule 36 motion.3
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court and deny Mr. deWilliams’s
3
On May 10, 2016, this court granted Mr. deWilliams’s second motion to extend
the time to file a reply brief and set the deadline for May 23, 2016. On June 7, 2016, we
extended the deadline a third time to June 27, 2016. As of the date of this Order and
Judgment, the Clerk’s Office has not received a reply brief from Mr. deWilliams.
-3-
request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-